Next GA Plane

[AKar]

I can't fathom there being a GA plane even close to that difficult.

At least if one followed the usual pilot's manuals, the Chieftain runs as close to critical as one can get out with. Of course, they mostly run just fine. Room for error is surprisingly small with high power GA engines, albeit they seldom exhibit a total failure due to mishandling at once. More than that, the damage is noted in the 50-hour.

I find the A2A P-51 rather easy in fact what comes to engine management, with all its automation and liquid cooling that most GAs lack. And the extra horsepower allows one to take it easy on her. I don't have the P-47 nor B377.

-Esa

[Redglyph]

Would it be better to see a new GA aircraft, or see the Accu-sim series with the P-51, Spitfire, B-377 and the others ported to P3D (v3 ... or v4)? I, for one, would be sad to have to remove them once they get incompatible. I wonder if there are plans about that

A new GA aircraft... but yes, a Lancaster! Oh... it's not GA. And... perhaps it's been suggested before?

[cristi.neagu]

I vote for new GA planes. I admit I'm biased. I never did like the military series of planes much.

[Roadburner426]

The P-51 is definitely easy engine management wise for sure. My problem yesterday just came from the fact I am used to doing 140kts in the Comanche as of late approaching the airport, and yesterday I was doing 250kts. So my usual markers for slowing down and so forth that I was doing like I would in the Comanche. I wound up on top of the airport before I knew it way to high, way to fast, with the landing gear still up, and just the first notch of flaps out that I use for a speed brake. I did the very bad pilot thing and basically forced it down, and came down halfway down the runway at KPHF and slammed on the brakes as soon as the tail dropped. Surprisingly I still had a decent amount of runway left as I had to taxi to the far end of 7. Either way she got away from me big time. Luckily I didn't have to manage the engine or oil cooler flaps, and the mixture otherwise it probably would have been far worse. I can only imagine a multi engine GA that is turbocharged and can be almost as fast in the pattern as the Mustang. Look forward to the challenge some day. The P-47 is a great bird, but you can blow the turbo in the blink of an eye. Is a constant balancing act of watching the MP, not moving the turbo lever past the throttle lever, and not running the turbo beyond its critical RPM at high altitude. Not to mention it flies like a giant heavy brick it feels like. Not to maneuverable at high weights, but can climb super high and stay there comfortably.

[Redglyph]

I vote for new GA planes. I admit I'm biased. I never did like the military series of planes much.

Yep, that's exactly what I've been wondering, in all logic the GA should have more appeal in the FSX/P3D context.

I never understood why we saw a Tomcat from Aerosoft, even if it's very well-modelled, or some of the great modules by Milviz. Perhaps it's nice with an uber-PC, but I can't enjoy such planes if the scenery is jerky because it's too fast (once or twice P3D simply crashed because it didn't have the time to load the textures to catch up with the F14's speed... and it's not a bad PC). To me, those have their place in DCS, not in P3D. But that's another debate

And while it's my (very humble) opinion, I still enjoy a ride in the civilian Mustang, or the Spitfire, because they're just powerful GA aircraft - by stretching it a little, and make such a lovely noise!

But I have to agree "real" GA would make more sense, objectively.

[AKar]

Something like a Chieftain, or say, Cessna 404 Titan, would indeed be a kind of ultimate A2A GA, in sense it could merge the COTS and GA lines, while providing a challenging, go-everywhere GA airplane to fly "charters" into smallest airports. Of course, it is likely it won't be on the near road map. The challenge with these things is handling one out, as most of light twins have marginal single-engine climb performance which necessitates feathered prop, closed cowls on shut-down, flaps and gear up and absolutely precise flying and everything out of the remaining one. The Chieftain for instance manages about 230 fpm at maximum weight. With gear down for instance, it is all downhill.

A clean Seneca (with cowl flaps reduced to half on the operating engine) does about 300 fpm on one, whereas Seminole does about 200 fpm at max weight.

-Esa

[Nick - A2A]

Something like a Chieftain, or say, Cessna 404 Titan, would indeed be a kind of ultimate A2A GA [...]

The 404 in particular holds quite an appeal for me as it's a type which I've had an opportunity to get a bit familiar with this year. Back in Jan I spent a week up at EGNX receiving some LIDAR (laser) flight training as a sensor operator in 404's (and also F406's) operated by these guys on behalf of my employer. This made quite a change from my usual boat-based survey work: no chance for making coffee and bacon sandwiches for a start!

Anyway, a couple of 5-6 hr duration flights in the 404 was my first experience of actually being paid to go flying. The work involves flying 'racetrack' type patterns (all flown by hand) and the workload for the single pilot is considerable. I was mostly just fiddling around on a laptop in the back!


Later that week, I got the chance to help with a kit swap from one of the F406's (going in for its annual check) into another. I think it took the two of us us about five hours or so with some careful lifting of the LIDAR unit which is supposedly worth half-a-million quid or something.


Then a calibration flight over Daventry to test we'd put everything back together properly.


This time I got the chance to sit up front.


Unfortunately, my 'wet' workload since (along with bad weather and some aircraft serviceability issues) has kept me from returning for more of the same. However, tomorrow I get to head back for a few more days of flight training!

Anyway, I mention this partly because it highlights some of the other interesting jobs that these types of aircraft get tasked for. Coolest of the RVL stuff would seem to be the fisheries enforcement work flying above the sea at (literally) mast height, à la The Dambusters. To be honest, I'm not sure what the operational requirements (let alone training/certification) for such low altitude ops are, but we've been buzzed by them a few times when I've been out at sea, and it can be quite a surprise.

Bring on the twin(s)!

Cheers,
Nick

[AKar]

Very good point included Nick, these larger light twins (and also bigger piston singles) are very much the work horses of many odd jobs even today. And interesting background - I was loosely involved with certain similar operations years back which had to do with snow depth measurements (I think they used some sort of millimeter-wave radar instead of LIDAR, which is also used for that purpose, but I understand requires two passes - a snow-free one for reference). Though they used Saratoga, not a twin.

The big twin Cessnas are something I don't know in person much at all, but were very familiar to the next few older generations in aviation around here. I do know the Chieftain some, albeit more from the classrooms and manuals than in person. I like that cockpit pic!

-Esa

[Lewis - A2A]

Oh Nick a little further East and I could have waved lol

[Dogsbody55]

I'm one of those hoping for GA twin. And hopefully in the next 3 months too. A Seminole or Seneca would be a great starto, or a B55 Baron - something from another manufacturer.


Cheers,
Mike

[Orlaam]

I would love to see a twin, but likely not a turboprop. They just don't work well in the sim, unless the engine modeling is done outside like Majestic's Dash. An older Piper Malibu would be just as nice. I prefer to go higher and faster, and pressurized ideally.

Really any GA that can go high and fast, twin or not.

[Nick - A2A]

I would love to see a twin, but likely not a turboprop. They just don't work well in the sim, unless the engine modeling is done outside like Majestic's Dash.

Yeah, I don't suppose a turboprop simulation is on A2A's roadmap any time soon. However, I still desperately hope that they'll create an external PT6A Accu-Sim module some time in the forseeable future.

The number of interesting aircraft this could be installed in would be rather large wouldn't it? I was lucky enough to get some more time in the F406 last week, and PT6's are definitely the next best thing to speed brakes when it comes to the frequent and fairly abrupt airspeed changes required for the survey work. I was actually pretty surprised at how notable the deceleration g-forces were in level flight. Certainly no way to do that (healthily) with the GTSIOs in the 404!

Here's a few more pics I took for anyone interested...

View looking forward from the operator's position. Note the little HUD-style pilot screen for him to fly the survey lines shown above. Cross-track error is typically just a few meters. As I mentioned above, pilot workload is very high. A nice GTN 650 as you can see, but no operable autopilot.


Firing the laser at golfers over Flamborough Head on the UK's east coast.


Tom and Kurt in the hold as we wait for a slot back into EGNX.


Final approach to RWY 09 at East Mids. A good view of Donington Park circuit in the foreground where practising was underway for the Superbike World Championships.


Cheers,
Nick

[Lewis - A2A]

Beautiful shots Nick, thankyou for sharing, love the Donnie shot!

[AKar]

Great pics, thanks for posting!

Yeah, I don't suppose a turboprop simulation is on A2A's roadmap any time soon. However, I still desperately hope that they'll create an external PT6A Accu-Sim module some time in the forseeable future.

In regards of PT6 simulation, the eternal project by Marcel Felde (Aerosoft PC-6) looks promising.

[...] PT6's are definitely the next best thing to speed brakes when it comes to the frequent and fairly abrupt airspeed changes required for the survey work. I was actually pretty surprised at how notable the deceleration g-forces were in level flight.

They can be better than speed brakes if so adjusted!

How PT6 is controlled makes up a modestly complicated system actually. Unlike some others, the PT6 takes use of something called "flight beta". Effectively, the beta range (where power lever movement directly controls the blade angle) extents well above the flight idle power setting (in TPE331 for instance, the flight idle is defined to be the exact point where the constant speed governing and the beta range transition to and from). There is an important, installation-specific propeller blade angle, called primary blade angle, that is more or less the maximum directly commanded blade angle available at beta range. Pulling the levers back from there will reduce the fuel flow while eventually catching the blades from the governed position into our direct control. Pushing the power lever further forward instead increases the fuel flow, bringing the prop up to set RPM and into constant speed governing range.

The flight idle can be so adjusted that it allows the blade angles to go pretty "flat" with appropriate fuel scheduling to keep the blades from overspeeding. This makes one fine air brake.

In principle, there is no direct technical limitation on going all the way to ground beta and reverse range in flight - for impressive stunts if nothing else. The problem is, however, that the propeller is on high positive torque, and the engine is scheduled to provide quite a bit of power, while the blade angles are negative. As the propeller would, in case certain things go not in the way one wanted, move naturally towards feather - and therefore right through the flat pitch angles - while under heavy load, such a situation can easily be enough to dramatically overspeed and disintegrate the prop and the engine before one likely even notices an issue.

-Esa

[Roadburner426]

That whole negative torque thing is a huge deal on the C-130's. A few props separated from the shafts and/or disintegrated so now they have pretty defined limits on what they can do. Scary to think stuff like that can happen on aircraft. Although a year or so back we did have an incident in the Navy H-60 community where a tail rotor separated from the tail gear box of an aircraft in flight. That was down to maintenance error though and not over torqueing on the pilots part. Still scary stuff like that can happen when there are all kinds of procedures and safety devices in place to stop it.